[Foundation-l] Lack of research on Wikipedia

Tue Aug 25 07:26:18 UTC 2009

Hoi,
I do not know what you are talking about.. Several of our projects do not
have any activity at all. others  are praised because there is activity as
in less then 100 new articles in the last year. So when you talk about "much
progress on quality" you forgot what this thread was about. So my argument
would be that the Usability Initiative contributions are extremely welcome.
As they are based on actual usability studies, they are clued in into what
prevents people to contribute to our projects.

You do appreciate that in a project with hardly any activity what a new
editor does, someone equivalent to a top writer on a de en nl ja fr or sr
Wikipedia (just a sample) .. The activity on the Swahili Wikipedia is
because of a handful of people.  They are the community and they can be
named.  So when we want to know what is needed to "get greater focus on user
needs" we can ask them personally.

For the projects with less then 10 active editors, the question what about
the public is moot. They are working their arses off to get to the
inflection point where things get a momentum of their own. And we have a
clue what helps bring this point down, but we do not have numbers.  I name
you two.

   - Localisation is easy to understand. When you know what you are expected
   to do, you understand that you have the choice to do it
   - Most relevant articles. This one is controversial. Is our emphasis on
   encyclopaedic information we think is important or is it encyclopaedic
   information people want to read.

For the second there are two approaches. We create a 100/1000 list of must
have articles. While there is merit in many of the subjects selected, do you
really think American Football is relevant in Upper Volta (I do not know).
The other is write what people want. We do not know what people want. If we
did we had a list of most looked for articles that could not be found for
each project. Now THAT would be user driven and THAT would motivate people
to write not only the article but possibly also the wiki network around such
articles.

All in all, we need more research, we need more research about the smaller
projects, we need to learn how to make them awesome (I refer to SJ's blog
about this). It does not have to be academic research to serve my purposes.
When our experience tells us that Localisation is important and when the
delivery of localisations is broken, we need a LocalisationUpdate. When we
want to know what the public for a Wikipedia is looking for, we register
what they cannot find.

In  essence it is easy, but in order to convince people to do what seems
right, we need those academic studies as well. We need them because we can
be wrong.. We need them because they can be the driver to get us the
statistics we need (the not found statistics for instance).
Thanks.
     GerardM

2009/8/24 Dennis During <dcduring at gmail.com>

> What is most remarkable in many ways is that there has been as much
> progress
> on quality and on meeting user needs despite a lack of measurements
> connected with those.  Perhaps that it attributable to the contributor
> population being a reasonably good match with the user population so that
> honest contributor introspection was almost as good as a usability study.
> As
> WMF pushes on it seems unlikely that the same fortunate conditions will
> continue. We have higher barriers to contribution by newer contributors and
> a richer mix of persons of academic orientation who seem to treat the
> projects as platforms for ersatz scholarly publication. In any event such
> folks are not a good model for the user base that the projects serve.
> Without some devices to get a greater focus on user needs, I fear a steady
> narrowing and deadening of the projects.
>
> The absence of information about how well the projects are serving user
> needs (those that we would want to serve) is part of what has led to the
> obsession with the crudest of measures about the product.
>
> IOW, you may not find so much information as you might want about how good
> a
> job the projects are doing.
>
> And therein may lie some of your recommendations.
>
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Fowler, John <john.fowler at bridgespan.org
> >wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I stumbled across this thread when I was browsing through some past
> > foundation-l posts. My name is John Fowler, and I'm with the Bridgespan
> > Group, working with the Wikimedia Foundation during the strategic
> > planning process to develop a fact base to inform future work.
> >
> > We're trying to pull together all available research currently on
> > Wikimedia's strategic planning site. You can find these preliminary fact
> > bases at http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fact_base. There's good data
> > here on article count, number of contributors, quality of articles, and
> > the demographics of readers/contributors. This may be of some use to the
> > discussion regarding the availability of research on Wikipedia, but any
> > additional information would be a huge help--especially given how much
> > knowledge seems to be passed back and forth on this mailing list.
> >
> > Best,
> > John
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gerard Meijssen [mailto:gerard.meijssen at gmail.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 2:22 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Lack of research on Wikipedia
> >
> > Hoi,
> > I wrote articles on all the fish of the Benelux. I cheered when I was
> > done..
> > Nobody else did. What we need is to celebrate something that has meaning
> > to
> > all. Articles do that better then anything I know.
> >
> > The thing with news is that it needs to be told. That is why I blog for
> > instance, how else do I explain that a GLAM is not about getting images
> > for
> > Wikipedia but that they provide the basis for the credibility of the
> > illustrations we use. Compare that to article numbers, there is the
> > suspense
> > of the numbers rising to this magical number... It is a great show, and
> > while it may have limited meaning, it gives a more universal sense of
> > accomplishment.
> > Thanks,
> >        GerardM
> >
> > 2009/8/20 Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk at googlemail.com>
> >
> > > Hi Gerard,
> > > Indeed, people need news. But they can be produced also with more
> > > sence having accomplishments: All mayors of our capital have an
> > > article, the 50 most important folk singers, great illustrated
> > > articles on the fauna and flora of our region...
> > > Kind regards
> > > Ziko
> > >
> > > 2009/8/20 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > For some of our smaller projects, the number of articles are the
> > only
> > > > milestones available. It is necessary to celebrate progress. It is
> > > > meaningful when the Swahili Wikipedia becomes the biggest African
> > > language
> > > > Wikipedia. It is meanigful when you compare it with most of the
> > other
> > > > African language projects that have no life in them.
> > > >
> > > > I agree that on many levels the numbers game is of little relevance
> > > however
> > > > it becomes relevant when there is a need for the celebration of
> > progress
> > > in
> > > > a project. A need to be motivated to go on with the gigantic task
> > that is
> > > > writing a Wikipedia.
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >      GerardM
> > > >
> > > > 2009/8/20 Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk at googlemail.com>
> > > >
> > > >> I couldn't agree more, Erik. Not paying attention to "milestones"
> > is
> > > >> the first and best step; Wikipedia:Signpost should start with it.
> > > >> Ziko
> > > >>
> > > >> 2009/8/20 Erik Zachte <erikzachte at infodisiac.com>:
> > > >>
> > > >> > I concur wholeheartedly. Focusing on rising article counts gave
> > us a
> > > >> thrill
> > > >> > for many years, and now it is difficult to kick the bad habit.
> > > >>
> > > >> > On a small wikipedia (at least most of them) there is simply not
> > > enough
> > > >> of a
> > > >> > community to drive this semi automated article creation process.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I think it would help if we discouraged any bragging on the 4th
> > > millionth
> > > >> > article in the English Wikipedia at all and downplayed any
> > inquiries
> > > from
> > > >> > the media.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > _______________________________________________
> > > >> > foundation-l mailing list
> > > >> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > >> > Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Ziko van Dijk
> > > >> NL-Silvolde
> > > >>
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> foundation-l mailing list
> > > >> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > >> Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > >>
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ziko van Dijk
> > > NL-Silvolde
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> >
> > ___________________NOTICE____________________________
> > This electronic mail transmission, including any attachments, contains
> > confidential information of Bain & Company, Inc. ("Bain") and/or its
> > clients.  It is intended only for the person(s) named, and the
> information
> > in such e-mail shall only be used by the person(s) named for the purpose
> > intended and for no other purpose.  Any use, distribution, copying or
> > disclosure by any other persons, or by the person(s) named but for
> purposes
> > other than the intended purpose, is strictly prohibited.  If you received
> > this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and
> > then destroy this e-mail.  Opinions, conclusions and other information in
> > this message that do not relate to the official business of Bain shall be
> > understood to be neither given nor endorsed by Bain.  When addressed to
> Bain
> > clients, any information contained in this e-mail shall be subject to the
> > terms and conditions in the applicable client contract.
> > _______________________________________
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Dennis C. During
>
> Cynolatry is tolerant so long as the dog is not denied an equal divinity
> with the deities of other faiths. - Ambrose Bierce
>
> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cynolatry
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>